Baromètre français de la Science Ouverte 2020

From Google’s English: “According to the 2020 edition of the Open Science Barometer (BSO), 56% of the 156,000 French scientific publications published in 2019 are available opened in December 2020. The rate observed in December 2019, relating to publications produced in 2018, was only 49%. The rate therefore increased by 7 points in one year. From one discipline to another, the proportion of open access varies greatly, from 75% for publications in Mathematics to 40% in Engineering Sciences. In addition, scientific publications published in 2018 or in previous years have an open rate increasing over time. In particular, those published in 2018 are now 54% open (+5 points compared to December 2019), and the increase, which concerns all disciplines, is greater in those less open….”

9500 euros pour publier dans «Nature», le séisme du plan S – Le Temps

From Google’s English:  “And in Switzerland? “The National Scientific Fund supports plan S but our strategy towards open access was decided before, in 2017, it’s a bit unfortunate,” explains Angelika Kalt, director of the SNSF. Our goal was to get 100% open access to the publications we funded by the end of 2020, we’ll probably get to 80%. The national objective is 100% free access by 2024. Where Switzerland differs from plan S is on the issue of immediate access; this big step did not seem possible to us, we accept a period of six months ”. The SNSF has been relaunched several times to join plan S, “this year we will position ourselves in consultation with SwissUniversities and researchers”….

In fact, like Germany in 2019, Switzerland in transition to open access signed “transformative” agreements in 2020 with two of the three largest publishers, Elsevier (up to 15 million francs) and  Springer (13 million francs). ) ; negotiations (led by SwissUniversities) continue with Wiley (the three publishers represent 60% of the articles consulted in Switzerland). These Read and Publish  agreements  allow unlimited access to journals and the possibility for researchers to publish in open access at no additional cost. That they include 80 to 100 pages of conditions clearly shows how complex and sensitive the subject is . Four others entered into force in early 2021 , adds Marie Fuselier, the director of the scientific information division at the University of Geneva.

But the devil is in the details: “We must not be naive, publishing houses know very well what is more and less read, recalls Angelika Kalt, they do not include their entire portfolio of newspapers in the Read agreements. and Publish, and the duration of agreements is often longer than desired. ” The contract with Elsevier, for example, runs for four years. Will the colossal sums of Read and Publish, which correspond to fixed prices, be amortized by a significant number of publications?”

 

9500 euros pour publier dans «Nature», le séisme du plan S – Le Temps

From Google’s English:  “And in Switzerland? “The National Scientific Fund supports plan S but our strategy towards open access was decided before, in 2017, it’s a bit unfortunate,” explains Angelika Kalt, director of the SNSF. Our goal was to get 100% open access to the publications we funded by the end of 2020, we’ll probably get to 80%. The national objective is 100% free access by 2024. Where Switzerland differs from plan S is on the issue of immediate access; this big step did not seem possible to us, we accept a period of six months ”. The SNSF has been relaunched several times to join plan S, “this year we will position ourselves in consultation with SwissUniversities and researchers”….

In fact, like Germany in 2019, Switzerland in transition to open access signed “transformative” agreements in 2020 with two of the three largest publishers, Elsevier (up to 15 million francs) and  Springer (13 million francs). ) ; negotiations (led by SwissUniversities) continue with Wiley (the three publishers represent 60% of the articles consulted in Switzerland). These Read and Publish  agreements  allow unlimited access to journals and the possibility for researchers to publish in open access at no additional cost. That they include 80 to 100 pages of conditions clearly shows how complex and sensitive the subject is . Four others entered into force in early 2021 , adds Marie Fuselier, the director of the scientific information division at the University of Geneva.

But the devil is in the details: “We must not be naive, publishing houses know very well what is more and less read, recalls Angelika Kalt, they do not include their entire portfolio of newspapers in the Read agreements. and Publish, and the duration of agreements is often longer than desired. ” The contract with Elsevier, for example, runs for four years. Will the colossal sums of Read and Publish, which correspond to fixed prices, be amortized by a significant number of publications?”

 

Le Plan S et l’Open Access : soutien ou perversion ? | Ouvertures immédiates / Immediate openings

From Google’s English:  “Open access is enjoying increasing success . Since 2017, the majority of new articles in all academic disciplines, especially in science, have been published in open access. In 2020, at the request of UNESCO , most publishers removed toll barriers from articles on the COVID-19 pandemic in order to quickly understand the characteristics of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and accelerate the development of vaccines and treatments. In this regard, the COVID-19 pandemic will have made many understand the usefulness, even the absolute necessity, of instant and open communication in the face of a large-scale collective challenge….

Another danger is that, by its binding nature (which is also its strength and its chance to operate), Plan S offers traditional publishers a tempting opportunity to demand publication rights (called APCs, article processing charges) excessively. high, in order not to cover costs, but to compensate for the shortfall in the cancellation of subscriptions….

Coalition S seeks to exert downward pressure on publishing prices by seeking transparency. When a grant recipient’s research is published, Plan S requires publishers to disclose their rates to funders, including the cost of services such as screening, organizing peer review. , improved writing and proofreading. The coalition is committed to sharing this information openly with authors and institutions, in the hope of ensuring some level of price control….

Some authors are also hesitant because of the requirement that they publish in prestigious and high-impact journals to obtain tenure, promotion or the means to carry out their work. In addition, they may fall victim to the misconception that journals which only offer open access articles lack rigor.

 

In addition, paying to publish in journals which benefit from the prestige of their publishing house creates a flagrant inequality between researchers according to the financial means at their disposal….”

 

Prairial, plateforme de revues en accès ouvert

“The Prairial platform was created in April 2017 to initially meet the needs of the human and social sciences (SHS) journals at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University. Since 2019, Prairial has broadened its field of action beyond initial scope, providing support for reviews of the Lyon – Saint-Étienne site but also on a larger scale. Prairial currently hosts 11 journals and several projects are underway for 2020.

Prairial has chosen to offer strong editorial support in order to enable the hosted journals to improve their editorial quality by relying on international standards ( DOAJ , Latindex ) and by meeting the quality criteria of the National Plan for Open Science and the S Plan ….”

Les revues en libre accès ne sont pas éternelles

From Google’s English:  “Non-commercial open access journals face a veritable “tragedy of common “: from the moment they are priceless and they cost nothing, it there is no incentive to archive them in the current publication distribution system scientists. In contrast, journals sold by subscription or by license represent a significant investment. Libraries cannot afford to lose irreparably part of the funds, at the risk of having to acquire them again. Archiving is not only an ethical choice: it is a motivated investment, which justifies costs incurred….”

Ouvrir la Science – Activités de Knowledge Exchange | Partenaires pour améliorer le service à l’ESR

Knowledge Exchange (KE) brings together six organizations from six countries. Their common objective is to examine the issues related to research support and infrastructure and service development.

Members:

CNRS (France),
CSC (Finland),
DEIC (Denmark),
DFG   (Germany),
JISC (United Kingdom),
SURF (Netherlands).

Recent results:

About monographs;

A landscape study on open access and monographs –  DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.815932
Knowledge Exchange Survey on Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.1475446
Towards a Roadmap for Open Access Monographs – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3238545

Preprints

Accelerating scholarly communication – The transformative role of preprints – DOI: 10.5281 / zenodo.3357727

Economy of Open Science

Insights into the Economy of Open Scholarship: A Collection of Interviews – DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2840171
Open Scholarship and the need for collective action – DOI 10.5281/zenodo.3454688

 

CASAD – C.A.S.A.D. Centre d’Accès aux Savoirs d’Afrique et de sa Diaspora

From Google’s English:  “C.AS.AD Center for Access to Knowledge of Africa and its Diaspora is a public service blog whose mission is to provide information on the knowledge of Africa and its Diaspora.

C.AS.AD aims to become a short-term Non-Governmental Organization and a long-term Research Institute. He specializes in the field of collecting and preserving academic and cultural knowledge from Africa and its diaspora. Its purpose is topromote the work of researchers from Africa and its diaspora to be accessible online on the Internet. She wants to encourage democracy, education in developing countries in Africa and her diaspora in Canada. The role of its diaspora to help access to information is a pledge that should allow people to make a judicious choice of those who should lead their state. C.AS.AD recognizes Information and Communication Technologies as privileged tools to encourage sustainable development, reduction of the digital divide in universities, schools and institutions wherever its sons live in the world. C.AS.AD acts to help and train all people wishing to organize, process in order to archive all memories of any kind.

You can access free articles, lecture videos and books….”

Increase encouragement for open science – L’Edition 13 (june 2020) | Université Paris-Saclay

From Google’s English:  “Paris-Saclay is following the movement, defining its own guidelines on the subject in accordance with the national framework and national, European and international networks. Sylvie Retailleau, President of Université Paris-Saclay explains, “We now have to take a political stance. In 2020, our open science charter will be reinforced to increase encouragement for publication on open access platforms. Our approach is sufficiently developed for us to judge which are the best platforms, provide tools for researchers, and reflect on how to promote people who are committed to open science, for example with recruitment or promotion. The first measures will probably be applied in 2021, after discussion and vote at the University’s academic council.” …”

L’open science en transition : des pirates à la dérive ?

From Google’s English:  “For years, institutions and scientists have launched great maneuvers to switch to open access. If open science progresses, we remain far from the objectives and the budgets devoted to scientific publications explode. 

In mid-June, the University of California signed an open access agreement with one of the five multinational publishing companies, Springer-Nature. It follows in particular those signed in May by the Dutch and Swiss universities with the other behemoth in the sector, Elsevier. The MIT announced a few days earlier  to end negotiations with Elsevier  for a new subscription contract to its scientific journals, putting forward ”  the principles of open access  ” to justify itself.

Since 2010, the balance of power between the open science movement and the major scientific publishers could appear completely reversed. That year, MIT felt compelled to actively collaborate (while pretending to take a neutral stance) in the investigation against its young student Aaron Swartz….”